In the first independent review of UFO
phenomena since 1970, a panel of scientists has
concluded that some sightings are accompanied by
physical evidence that deserves scientific study.
But the panel was not convinced that any of this
evidence points to a violation of known natural
laws or the involvement of an extraterrestrial
intelligence.

The review was organized and directed by Peter
Sturrock, professor of applied physics at
Stanford University, and supported
administratively by the Society for Scientific
Exploration, which provides a forum for research
into unexplained phenomena. The international
review panel of nine physical scientists
responded to presentations by eight investigators
of UFO reports, who were asked to present their
strongest data. Von R. Eshleman, professor
emeritus of electrical engineering at Stanford,
co-chaired the panel.

Although UFO reports date back 50 years, the
information gathered does not prove that either
unknown physical processes or alien technologies
are implicated. But it does include a sufficient
number of intriguing and inexplicable
observations, the panel concluded. "It may
be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports to
extract information about unusual phenomena
currently unknown to science." To be
credible to the scientific community "such
evaluations must take place with a spirit of
objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival
hypotheses" that has so far been lacking, it
added.

This conclusion differs from that reached by
Dr. Edward U. Condon, director of the Colorado
Project, in his 1968 UFO report. He concluded
that "further extensive study of UFOs
probably cannot be justified in the expectation
that science will be advanced thereby." It
is very similar, however, to the conclusion
reached by the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics' Kuettner Report issued two
years later, which advocated "a continuing,
moderate-level [research] effort with emphasis on
improved data collection by objective means and
on high-quality scientific analysis."

In the current study, the scientific panel
focused on incidents involving some form of
physical evidence, including photographic
evidence, radar evidence, vehicle interference,
interference with aircraft equipment, apparent
gravitational or inertial effects, ground traces,
injuries to vegetation, physiological effects on
witnesses, and debris. Of particular concern are
reports that UFO encounters may be hazardous to
people's health. Some witnesses have reportedly
suffered radiation-type injuries. These reports
led the panel to draw the attention of the
medical community to the possible health risks
involved.

The scientists found that some of the reported
incidents may have been caused by rare natural
phenomena, such as electrical activity high above
thunderstorms or radar ducting (the trapping and
conducting of radar waves by atmospheric
channels). However, the panel found that some of
the phenomena related to UFOs are not easy to
explain in this fashion.

Further analysis of the evidence presented to
the panel is unlikely to shed added light on the
causes underlying the reports, the scientists
said. Most current UFO investigations lack the
level of rigor required by the scientific
community, despite the initiative and dedication
of the investigators involved. But new data,
scientifically acquired and analyzed, could yield
useful information and advance our understanding
of the UFO problem, the panel said.

The reviewers also made the following
observations:

 The UFO problem is not a simple one,
and it is unlikely that there is any simple,
universal answer.

 Whenever there are unexplained
observations, there is the possibility that
scientists will learn something new by studying
them.

 Studies should concentrate on cases
that include as much independent physical
evidence as possible.

 Continuing contact between the UFO
community and physical scientists could be
productive.

 Institutional support for research in
this area is desirable.

The review panel consisted of Von Eshleman;
Thomas Holzer, High Altitude Observatory in
Boulder, Colo.; Randy Jokipii, professor of
planetary science, University of Arizona, Tucson;
Francois Louange, managing director of Fleximage,
Paris, France; H. J. Melosh, professor of
planetary science, University of Arizona, Tucson;
James J. Papike, professor of earth and planetary
sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque;
Guenther Reitz, German Aerospace Center,
Institute for Aerospace Medicine, Cologne,
Germany; Charles Tolbert, professor of astronomy,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville; and
Bernard Veyret, Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory,
University of Bordeaux, France. Eshleman and
Holzer served as co-chairs of the panel.